Recommended Posts

P20+ is 16mp - as you say probably not the sweet spot. I'd be looking at a P45+ for my 500/c but then if you haven't got a set of lenses it gets expensive.

So the 500/c is still a good investment? I don't really care about the mp. People said the P25+ is better but I don't find it anywhere in Poland. Lens mount of the 500/c and the recent haselblade are the same right?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So the 500/c is still a good investment? I don't really care about the mp. People said the P25+ is better but I don't find it anywhere in Poland. Lens mount of the 500/c and the recent haselblade are the same right?

Not especialy - the bodies can be found very cheaply but to get a good set of lenses will set you back quite a lot of money. If I were starting a MF digital system from scratch on on a budget I'd be looking at a 645 system.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Honestly buying a second hand Full Frame, that is not a recent model,beside for your ego, is pointless when you can have an m4/3 for 2k usd new.

m4/3 glass is much more advanced and competitive and you can get a more shallow dof for most focal if it s what you are after.

The compression things is not accurate, its only relative to your camera to subject distance, you can make the same image on any format, just the dof change.

The only advantage is the image ratio if you don t like m4/3,and mayyyyyybbbeee if you shoot landscape and want to close the iris a lot because of the circle of confusion ( but CMOS sensor get noisy on long exposure anyway)
but in term of functionality those cameras are dinosaurs, I had a Sony A7sii, I had a fun time with it, but I traded it for a m4/3 and never looked back.

If you want an interesting look, shoot polaroid, instax and packfilm...

... or learn to separate your personal preferences from facts. Image quality is not measurable. Specs don't mean jack. No camera in the history of the world is factually "better" than another camera. It depends on the user and is always subjective.

Well, you can make fun of me as much fun as you want, but for dof your statement is plain wrong , to match a 85mm 1.2 on full frame you need a 46mm f 0.6 om mft or a 137 mm f 1.9 on 645.

Same thing for the circle of confusion.

Medium format is not a competitive market, less money is spent on development and the companies making the camera are not as big as big corporation such as sony or panasonic.

I did own an GH4 and other m4/3 cameras, but I also worked with digital medium format and owned one as stated.

Image quality is not measurable, that a plain stupid statement, medium format CCD suck at high iso , small format sensor as well.
14 bits raw was reserved to medium format in the past, but now you have it on a7r2.

The ego note was self criticism as well, since I owned a digital medium format myself , and yeah it make you feel you achieved something as a photographer but then technological reality hit you.

Not accepting other's opinions. Calling people stupid for not sharing your personal preferences. Stating that your preferences of ISO noise is truth and others aren't allowed to disagree. Sorry but no creator does that and definitely no photograper.

You can make fun of me all you want. Unlike you Ive just stated a humble opinion

Share on other sites

Truth is a subjective feeling. Not a measurable fact. I cannot speak a word of English.

People say those sorts of things with a straight face and it really just boils down to "I want an excuse to dismiss your idea because I think I am right but don't have any reasons for why I think that."

Which is not to say this is happening here, it's just such a wonderfully self-refuting kind of statement that I thought I'd mention it in passing.

An image becomes better as it comes to more closely resemble the object it is taken of. As they become one. There are many objective ways of testing this objective relationship and they ultimately boil down to the maths being used by engineers in the same way we use physics formulae to define the operation of such things as gravity. To say otherwise is self-refuting as it is a claim to know for certain that you can't know for certain. Mate did a PhD in computers seeing stuff. Quite interesting topic really.

Share on other sites

People say those sorts of things with a straight face and it really just boils down to "I want an excuse to dismiss your idea because I think I am right but don't have any reasons for why I think that."

So if I say that I like strawberry Ice Cream but you say Chocolate. Its all just me trying to find an excuse to dismiss your idea...? Sorry but I don't buy that.

The biggest mistake in this logic is that you believe one of us could be "right". Where as believe that with ice cream flavour as well as photography there is no right or wrong. Its all in the eyes of the viewer/eater.

A person saying that an image from camera A is nicer than from camera B no matter the subject. And not accepting that others could disagree even though they probably accepts his/hers opinion. Instead calling them stupid. That is not a creator imho. And therefore not a photographer but a guy with a camera.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So if I say that I like strawberry Ice Cream but you say Chocolate. Its all just me trying to find an excuse to dismiss your idea...? Sorry but I don't buy that.

The biggest mistake in this logic is that you believe one of us could be "right". Where as believe that with ice cream flavour as well as photography there is no right or wrong. Its all in the eyes of the viewer/eater.

A person saying that an image from camera A is nicer than from camera B no matter the subject. And not accepting that others could disagree even though they probably accepts his/hers opinion. Instead calling them stupid. That is not a creator imho. And therefore not a photographer but a guy with a camera.

The question is not whether you like strawberry or chocolate, but what is the ice cream in the bowl in front of us. The argument that you can't tell what flavour is in the bowl because you don't like strawberry is equally nonsensical. You are misdefining Image Quality, which is linked to reality, to an idea of perceived beauty of that reproduced object. Presumably there is a point to you wanting to do that but I'd give up on it and just clarify what you are actually talking about so people don't think you're objectively compromised.

Share on other sites

The question is not whether you like strawberry or chocolate, but what is the ice cream in the bowl in front of us. The argument that you can't tell what flavour is in the bowl because you don't like strawberry is equally nonsensical. You are misdefining Image Quality, which is linked to reality, to an idea of perceived beauty of that reproduced object. Presumably there is a point to you wanting to do that but I'd give up on it and just clarify what you are actually talking about so people don't think you're objectively compromised.

Not true.

We are talking about after we've tasted as well as after we have printed/published the images.

If true answer this. What is "better" B&W or color? And not it depends on this or that. What is better. Which is the correct answer. And this includes everything, street, x-ray, portrait, sports. Which is the correct answer to all situations in life.

Answer this so we can go around and tell everyone using the opposite that they are wrong stupid idiots. If you say color my dentist is sure gonna get it. Not using color when its the correct and better image quality...

You by now know that there of course is no right or wrong to this question and I dont need an answer.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

OH ARE YOU SURE?? Are you saying the picture I paint doesn't correspond to reality? That my "image quality" isn't good enough? Ok, thanks for proving the point.

I think what you really mean to say is something like "IQ isn't everything, there's a subjective side of evaluating a picture too." In which case I think you'll find people understand, and agree, with you a lot more.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Say you frame the shot for the armchair below, and you want to get the background to fall away and not be in the frame (white door to the right).

A 35mm is a 35mm. And it isn't going to give you the right result for this job...

When you need to get close it has the perspective distortion of a wide angle lens.

A 90mm is a 90mm. No matter how close you get it won't give the same look as a 35mm. The perspective is different.

35mm:

That's why portraiture is done on medium format, for a more natural rendering of the face.

As for cropping the sensor into either of these lenses... Crop the two frames above in Photoshop and tell me if her nose looks any different

Move the 35mm back and this image is dramatically different. And yes it will match a 90mm since all that matters is distance to subject, not all this lens compression nonsense. This article explains/demonstrates it perfectly.

"The perspective in a photograph is 100%, completely dependent on the photographer’s physical distance between them and their subject. That’s it. Not the lens, not the format, nothing but the distance.

To create an image with telephoto compression, the photographer backs away from the subject and uses a longer focal length to keep the framing the way they want. The key point is: It’s the backing up that changes the perspective, not the lens.

If I am 1 foot from my subject, and the background is 100 feet behind, and I frame the subject with an ultra-wide angle lens, the difference between me and the subject and the subject to the background is 1 to 100. Now, if I back up 10 feet and frame the subject so they’re the same size in the frame as my original composition by using a short telephoto lens, now that ratio is only 1:10. This causes the background to appear much closer to my subject than in the first instance."

Shoot both lenses from 15 or so feet away and crop the 35 to match the 90, images will be identical. If you try to get the same framing in cam, the 35 will be much closer to your subject, creating the unflattering look with people, minimizing background elements - like making mountains and buildings look smaller and so on.

Link to post

Share on other sites

The point is that when you crop into a medium format image you get the compression of the 80mm, whereas when you crop into a 2x crop sensor from a 25mm lens, you never get the depth compression of an 80mm or telephoto... it's 25mm.

A 25mm is a 25mm.

An 80 is an 80!

Cropping a full frame image out of medium format = 80mm on full frame

Cropping a 2x crop image out of medium format = 80mm on micro four thirds

Now, you can't say an 80mm portrait lens on micro four thirds looks like a 25mm portrait on micro four thirds.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Since you have the cameras and lenses, why don't you just make a small comparison. Distortion of the different lenses will make it a little bit complicated so try to stick to simple designs.

Take the GH5 with a 28mm lens at 2.8 and the hasselblad h3d 39 with the 80mm and f8. Same lens front (lens nodal point would be better) to object distance. Let's say 3 meters headshot with plenty of things going on behind, post the images here and let's see about that compression.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The point is that when you crop into a medium format image you get the compression of the 80mm, whereas when you crop into a 2x crop sensor from a 25mm lens, you never get the depth compression of an 80mm or telephoto... it's 25mm.

A 25mm is a 25mm.

An 80 is an 80!

Cropping a full frame image out of medium format = 80mm on full frame

Cropping a 2x crop image out of medium format = 80mm on micro four thirds

Now, you can't say an 80mm portrait lens on micro four thirds looks like a 25mm portrait on micro four thirds.

Andrew, nikkor is right I m sorry,only the minimal dof change, digital medium format have been used for resolution gain more than anything else , it still true today.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The DOF behaves differently,but the compression? Maybe lens constructions or some strange quality of optics I don't know about makes distortion different (ever seen how differently perspective is in a simmetric wide compared to a retro focus or zoom lens of the same focal length?) and this makes you feel there is different compression, but perspective is the determinating factor here and that only depends on distance.

Link to post

Share on other sites

What about the focus fall off as well as perspective. F2.8 on medium format doesn't quite look like F1.4 on full frame. The transitions are more gentle.

On perspective...

Say you shoot the moon behind 3 trees.

You want to get all 3 trees in the shot, make the moon loom as big as possible behind them.

You need a telephoto to get the big moon... and to step back far enough from the trees that they are all in the shot and the perspective bunches them up against the backdrop.

Shooting close to the trees with a wide lens will push the background perspective back so that the moon looks like a pinprick of light and the effect is lost.

The advantage of a large sensor here is that you can get closer to the subject with a long lens, is it not?

Because if you had a smaller sensor on there, you'd need to be so far away to get the framing the same as the larger sensor, and sometimes that isn't possible.

In terms of going wider on the crop sensor and further way, yes it does seem to compensate for perspective changes of the focal length... distance does matter... Maybe I should do some more shooting with my Hasselblad to show what I mean in a clearer way... I had to leave it in the UK when I went back to Berlin recently so haven't had much time with it.